The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled against a Vancouver lawyer who claimed his former firm’s mandatory retirement age was discriminatory.

John Michael McCormick, now 69, was a partner at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP when he turned 65 in 2010. According to the firm’s rules, McCormick had until the end of that year to retire as a partner and divest their equity in the firm. Before that could happen, McCormick brought a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal alleging age discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The law firm fired back, saying McCormick’s role as a partner did make him an “employee” under the Code. B.C.’s Human Right’s code forbids discrimination based on age, sex, race and other factors, but it also defines employment as a hierarchical relationship. McCormick’s lawyers had argued that even though McCormick was a part-owner in the firm, he could still be considered an “employee.”

Although the Tribunal sided with McCormick, the case made its way to the Court of Appeals.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court concluded in a 7-0 decision that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the case because McCormick’s role as a partner did not put him in the same sort of vulnerable position as an “employee.”

“As an equity partner, and based on his ownership, sharing of profits and losses, and the right to participate in management, [McCormick] was part of the group that controlled the partnership, not a person vulnerable to its control, and, for over 30 years, benefited financially from the retirement of other partners,” said the ruling.

The law firm released a statement Thursday saying it was satisfied with the ruling.

“This is an isolated issue that is unprecedented at Fasken Martineau,” said William Westeringh, the firm’s managing partner in Vancouver.

The ruling has major implications for the law industry, where mandatory retirement for partners with equity share has remained a norm in a country where the practice is disappearing. The case was watched closely by other firms and some of the biggest names in Canada law intervened in the case, including Ernst & Young LLP, KPMG LLP, Deloitte LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.